What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809477 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4809477?

Rent Arrears: $5,657.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809477?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10413845-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809477 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4809477?

Rent Arrears: $5,657.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809477?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10413845-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

505 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa Tenancy Tribunal Case 4809477 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809477 — net $2,357.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/05/2024	$5,657.15	Rent arrears to 08/05/2024
Net award	$2,357.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,357.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2.
[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Dylan Bruce $2,357.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made an application for: a. the premises not meeting Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”); 4809477, 48431822 b. the landlord not providing an HHS statement; c. the bond not being lodged by the due date; d. retaliatory notice; and e. reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application for: a. rent arrears; b. refund of the bond; and c. reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy began on 18 th December 2023. It was managed by the owner himself initially. Prior to this tenancy, the premises was let out as an Airbnb. It is understood that the owner was a first-time landlord.
The parties signed a two-page tenancy agreement that only had the basic details. It did not comply with the tenancy agreement requirements under section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
There were some initial delays with the rent payments getting through to the landlord as the landlord needed to complete the necessary paperwork to become a provider with the Ministry of Social Development (“MSD”).
The rent was originally $850.00 per week. After two weeks, the rent was adjusted down to $825.00 per week.
The bond of $3,400.00 was paid by MSD to the landlord on 29 th December 2023.
There was a dispute regarding two weeks’ worth of rent between 25 th December 2023 and 7 th January 2024. The tenant was told by MSD that it had been redirected but the landlord disputed ever receiving the two weeks’ worth of rent.
The parties were able to get MSD to cover all outstanding arrears as of 21 st February 2024.
The owner engaged Barfoot & Thompson to act as the property manager from 15 th February 2024.
The owner had been battling some serious health issues at the time.
With Barfoot & Thompson as the landlord, the parties signed a proper tenancy agreement that complied with section 13A RTA on 13 th February 2024. 4809477, 48431823
Bond of $3,300.00 was lodged with the Bond Centre on 23 rd February 2024. The extra $100.00 paid originally was used towards rent arrears to take into account the lowered weekly rent.
On 6 th March 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a 63 days’ termination notice. The owner required the property for his own use.
The tenant initially believed that this was in retaliation to the tenant’s various requests for maintenance and compliance.
The tenant moved out on 8 th May 2024.
The owner moved back into the premises subsequently.
I deal with the tenant’s claims first. HHS not being met
Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, the landlord must comply with HHS.
There is no dispute that the premises did not meet the HHS when the tenancy began.
From the start date of the tenancy, the 90-day compliance date for HHS was 16 th April 2024.
After Barfoot & Thompson took over management, the premises was assessed for HHS. It failed when it was assessed on 19 th February 2024.
The areas of failure were heating, insulation, moisture ingress & drainage and draught-stopping.
Subsequently, work was done to address the failures and the premises was signed off as being HHS-compliant on 24 th April 2024.
This was eight days later than the 90-day compliance date. However, there was an email explaining that the delay was due to the HHS assessor being sick on 19 th February 2024. I accept that if the assessor had not been sick, the premises would have been signed off on the 19 th April 2024.
The breach of HHS was merely technical. I find there is no public interest in any exemplary damages being awarded in the circumstances. The landlord not providing an HHS statement
Under 13A RTA, the landlord must include HHS information in the tenancy agreement. When the owner was managing the premises, this was not included.
The tenant required this information for MSD. When the tenant repeated this request, the owner engaged Barfoot & Thompson. The HHS statement was 4809477, 48431824 provided by Barfoot & Thompson. Work was then undertaken to get the premises HHS compliant.
The landlord can face up to $750.00 exemplary damages for not providing all the information required in a tenancy agreement. Not knowing about the landlord’s obligation is not a reasonable excuse.
However, I do not find that there was an intentional failure by the owner in omitting the HHS statement and I find that the owner has rectified his own shortcomings by engaging in a professional property management company.
The management company was able to rectify the HHS issues in a timely manner.
I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this situation. The bond not being lodged by the due date
The tenant claimed that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
As the bond was received on 29 th December 2023, the bond should have been sent to the Bond Centre by 2 nd February 2024.
On 9 th February 2024, the tenant sent a text message to the owner that he could use the bond money to clear the rent arrears. According to the landlord, the arrears already exceeded the bond money paid at that point.
Sometime before 9 th and 23 rd February 2024, the tenant told Barfoot & Thompson that the entire bond money should not have been used to offset the rent arrears. When this was communicated to Barfoot & Thompson, $3,300.00 was sent as bond to the Bond Centre.
Barfoot& Thompson then sought for the outstanding rent arrears from the tenant. MSD paid the outstanding rent arrears. 4809477, 48431825
There were 14 working days between when the bond should have been lodged and when it got lodged. The landlord had committed an unlawful act by being late.
However, I find that there is no public interest in awarding exemplary damages for the delay in light of the delayed initial MSD payments and the inexperience of the owner in managing a tenancy himself in ill health. I am satisfied that the owner did the right thing by engaging in a professional property manager when he found himself out of his depths.
I make no exemplary damages order for this. Retaliatory notice
Initially the tenant believed that the owner would not be moving back into the premises and added a retaliatory notice to the claim.
However, it transpired that the owner did in fact move back into the premises once the tenant moved out.
Based on this, the tenant withdrew this claim at the hearing. Therefore, this claim is not considered. Rent arrears
Having dealt with the tenant’s claims, I now turn to the landlord’s claims.
The landlord provided rent records that proved rent arrears of $5,657.15 were owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that this should be offset by $1,700.00 being two MSD redirection payments made for weeks beginning 25 th December 2023 and 1 st January 2024.
Barfoot & Thompson had checked the owner’s bank statement but found no record of $1,700.00 being received for that period.
Unfortunately, the tenant was unable to get any confirmation from MSD to state that those payments had been made.
Therefore, I order the full amount of $5,657.15 to be paid by the tenant.
However, the landlord is to send the tenant the relevant bank statement so that the tenant can check this with MSD and get reimbursed if need be by MSD.
The bond will be refunded to the landlord to offset the outstanding rent.
As both parties had success in their respective applications, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. 4809477, 48431826 Matters not covered
The tenant had raised maintenance issues with the landlord during the tenancy.
When the tenant made the application to the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenant had mistakenly thought that the “failure to maintain” issues and “drinkable water” and “water tank maintenance” were all part of the premises being a “healthy home”. Therefore, no specific claim was lodged for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premise.
Although I have sympathy for the tenant’s mistake, the landlord was not in a position to respond to the claims today. As such, I do not allow for the application to be amended at the hearing given that the hearing had been adjourned once before already.
I do note that there is a big question mark as to whether or not the tenant was provided with drinkable water. Apparently, there was an expired water filter for the plumbed refrigerator water dispenser but the water tank itself had not been cleaned for some time.
The tenant is free to lodge another application to address these issues. Those issues can be dealt with by any Adjudicator if and when the tenant lodges such application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809477 — net $2,357.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/05/2024	$5,657.15	Rent arrears to 08/05/2024
Net award	$2,357.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,357.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2.
[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Dylan Bruce $2,357.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made an application for: a. the premises not meeting Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”); 4809477, 48431822 b. the landlord not providing an HHS statement; c. the bond not being lodged by the due date; d. retaliatory notice; and e. reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application for: a. rent arrears; b. refund of the bond; and c. reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy began on 18 th December 2023. It was managed by the owner himself initially. Prior to this tenancy, the premises was let out as an Airbnb. It is understood that the owner was a first-time landlord.
The parties signed a two-page tenancy agreement that only had the basic details. It did not comply with the tenancy agreement requirements under section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
There were some initial delays with the rent payments getting through to the landlord as the landlord needed to complete the necessary paperwork to become a provider with the Ministry of Social Development (“MSD”).
The rent was originally $850.00 per week. After two weeks, the rent was adjusted down to $825.00 per week.
The bond of $3,400.00 was paid by MSD to the landlord on 29 th December 2023.
There was a dispute regarding two weeks’ worth of rent between 25 th December 2023 and 7 th January 2024. The tenant was told by MSD that it had been redirected but the landlord disputed ever receiving the two weeks’ worth of rent.
The parties were able to get MSD to cover all outstanding arrears as of 21 st February 2024.
The owner engaged Barfoot & Thompson to act as the property manager from 15 th February 2024.
The owner had been battling some serious health issues at the time.
With Barfoot & Thompson as the landlord, the parties signed a proper tenancy agreement that complied with section 13A RTA on 13 th February 2024. 4809477, 48431823
Bond of $3,300.00 was lodged with the Bond Centre on 23 rd February 2024. The extra $100.00 paid originally was used towards rent arrears to take into account the lowered weekly rent.
On 6 th March 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a 63 days’ termination notice. The owner required the property for his own use.
The tenant initially believed that this was in retaliation to the tenant’s various requests for maintenance and compliance.
The tenant moved out on 8 th May 2024.
The owner moved back into the premises subsequently.
I deal with the tenant’s claims first. HHS not being met
Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, the landlord must comply with HHS.
There is no dispute that the premises did not meet the HHS when the tenancy began.
From the start date of the tenancy, the 90-day compliance date for HHS was 16 th April 2024.
After Barfoot & Thompson took over management, the premises was assessed for HHS. It failed when it was assessed on 19 th February 2024.
The areas of failure were heating, insulation, moisture ingress & drainage and draught-stopping.
Subsequently, work was done to address the failures and the premises was signed off as being HHS-compliant on 24 th April 2024.
This was eight days later than the 90-day compliance date. However, there was an email explaining that the delay was due to the HHS assessor being sick on 19 th February 2024. I accept that if the assessor had not been sick, the premises would have been signed off on the 19 th April 2024.
The breach of HHS was merely technical. I find there is no public interest in any exemplary damages being awarded in the circumstances. The landlord not providing an HHS statement
Under 13A RTA, the landlord must include HHS information in the tenancy agreement. When the owner was managing the premises, this was not included.
The tenant required this information for MSD. When the tenant repeated this request, the owner engaged Barfoot & Thompson. The HHS statement was 4809477, 48431824 provided by Barfoot & Thompson. Work was then undertaken to get the premises HHS compliant.
The landlord can face up to $750.00 exemplary damages for not providing all the information required in a tenancy agreement. Not knowing about the landlord’s obligation is not a reasonable excuse.
However, I do not find that there was an intentional failure by the owner in omitting the HHS statement and I find that the owner has rectified his own shortcomings by engaging in a professional property management company.
The management company was able to rectify the HHS issues in a timely manner.
I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in this situation. The bond not being lodged by the due date
The tenant claimed that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
As the bond was received on 29 th December 2023, the bond should have been sent to the Bond Centre by 2 nd February 2024.
On 9 th February 2024, the tenant sent a text message to the owner that he could use the bond money to clear the rent arrears. According to the landlord, the arrears already exceeded the bond money paid at that point.
Sometime before 9 th and 23 rd February 2024, the tenant told Barfoot & Thompson that the entire bond money should not have been used to offset the rent arrears. When this was communicated to Barfoot & Thompson, $3,300.00 was sent as bond to the Bond Centre.
Barfoot& Thompson then sought for the outstanding rent arrears from the tenant. MSD paid the outstanding rent arrears. 4809477, 48431825
There were 14 working days between when the bond should have been lodged and when it got lodged. The landlord had committed an unlawful act by being late.
However, I find that there is no public interest in awarding exemplary damages for the delay in light of the delayed initial MSD payments and the inexperience of the owner in managing a tenancy himself in ill health. I am satisfied that the owner did the right thing by engaging in a professional property manager when he found himself out of his depths.
I make no exemplary damages order for this. Retaliatory notice
Initially the tenant believed that the owner would not be moving back into the premises and added a retaliatory notice to the claim.
However, it transpired that the owner did in fact move back into the premises once the tenant moved out.
Based on this, the tenant withdrew this claim at the hearing. Therefore, this claim is not considered. Rent arrears
Having dealt with the tenant’s claims, I now turn to the landlord’s claims.
The landlord provided rent records that proved rent arrears of $5,657.15 were owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that this should be offset by $1,700.00 being two MSD redirection payments made for weeks beginning 25 th December 2023 and 1 st January 2024.
Barfoot & Thompson had checked the owner’s bank statement but found no record of $1,700.00 being received for that period.
Unfortunately, the tenant was unable to get any confirmation from MSD to state that those payments had been made.
Therefore, I order the full amount of $5,657.15 to be paid by the tenant.
However, the landlord is to send the tenant the relevant bank statement so that the tenant can check this with MSD and get reimbursed if need be by MSD.
The bond will be refunded to the landlord to offset the outstanding rent.
As both parties had success in their respective applications, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. 4809477, 48431826 Matters not covered
The tenant had raised maintenance issues with the landlord during the tenancy.
When the tenant made the application to the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenant had mistakenly thought that the “failure to maintain” issues and “drinkable water” and “water tank maintenance” were all part of the premises being a “healthy home”. Therefore, no specific claim was lodged for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premise.
Although I have sympathy for the tenant’s mistake, the landlord was not in a position to respond to the claims today. As such, I do not allow for the application to be amended at the hearing given that the hearing had been adjourned once before already.
I do note that there is a big question mark as to whether or not the tenant was provided with drinkable water. Apparently, there was an expired water filter for the plumbed refrigerator water dispenser but the water tank itself had not been cleaned for some time.
The tenant is free to lodge another application to address these issues. Those issues can be dealt with by any Adjudicator if and when the tenant lodges such application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809477 — Rent arrears at 505 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809477 — Rent arrears at 505 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions